*Re: [PATCH 00/28] at24: remove at24_platform_data
2018-08-08 16:27 ` Bartosz Golaszewski@ 2018-08-08 16:44 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-08-08 16:52 ` Bartosz Golaszewski0 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Lunn @ 2018-08-08 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski
Cc: Wolfram Sang, Bartosz Golaszewski, Jonathan Corbet, Sekhar Nori,
Kevin Hilman, Russell King, Arnd Bergmann, Greg Kroah-Hartman,
David Woodhouse, Brian Norris, Boris Brezillon, Marek Vasut,
Richard Weinberger, Grygorii Strashko, David S . Miller,
Srinivas Kandagatla, Naren, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Andrew Morton,
Lukas Wunner, Dan Carpenter, Florian Fainelli, Ivan Khoronzhuk,
Sven Van Asbroeck, Paolo Abeni, Alban Bedel, Rob Herring,
David Lechner, linux-doc, LKML, arm-soc, linux-i2c, linux-mtd,
Linux-OMAP, netdev
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> >>
> >> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series[1] which partially
> >> removed the at24_platform_data structure. After further development and
> >> taking reviews into account, this series finally removes that struct
> >> completely but not without touching many different parts of the code
> >> base.
> >>
> >> Since I took over maintainership of the at24 driver I've been working
> >> towards removing at24_platform_data in favor for device properties.
> >
> > Wooha, nice work. I can't really comment on it but wondered how you want
> > to upstream it (after reviews)? Pull request of an immutable branch for
> > nvmem-tree sounds best to me. Then I could also pull it in if i2c needs
> > it. Probably same situation for arm-soc...
> >
>
> I initially wanted to merge small parts of it starting with v4.18, but
> there were some voices against merging APIs without users. I'm not
> sure how it should go in. There'll be a need for multiple immutable
> branches most probably...
Hi Bartosz
What this series does is show all the different parts are now
available, and can be reviewed as a whole. Once that review is
completed, merging in parts then becomes possible.
It looks like you could probably merge the nvmem, mtd and net parts
independently via there maintainers for 4.20, since i don't think
there are any dependencies. The arm-soc changes in 4.21, and the
removal of the platform data in 4.22?
Andrew
^permalinkrawreply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread

*Re: [PATCH 00/28] at24: remove at24_platform_data
2018-08-08 16:44 ` Andrew Lunn@ 2018-08-08 16:52 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2018-08-10 8:12 ` Sekhar Nori0 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread
From: Bartosz Golaszewski @ 2018-08-08 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Lunn
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski, Wolfram Sang, Jonathan Corbet, Sekhar Nori,
Kevin Hilman, Russell King, Arnd Bergmann, Greg Kroah-Hartman,
David Woodhouse, Brian Norris, Boris Brezillon, Marek Vasut,
Richard Weinberger, Grygorii Strashko, David S . Miller,
Srinivas Kandagatla, Naren, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Andrew Morton,
Lukas Wunner, Dan Carpenter, Florian Fainelli, Ivan Khoronzhuk,
Sven Van Asbroeck, Paolo Abeni, Alban Bedel, Rob Herring,
David Lechner, linux-doc, LKML, arm-soc, linux-i2c, linux-mtd,
Linux-OMAP, netdev
2018-08-08 18:44 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>:
>> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>> >>
>> >> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series[1] which partially
>> >> removed the at24_platform_data structure. After further development and
>> >> taking reviews into account, this series finally removes that struct
>> >> completely but not without touching many different parts of the code
>> >> base.
>> >>
>> >> Since I took over maintainership of the at24 driver I've been working
>> >> towards removing at24_platform_data in favor for device properties.
>> >
>> > Wooha, nice work. I can't really comment on it but wondered how you want
>> > to upstream it (after reviews)? Pull request of an immutable branch for
>> > nvmem-tree sounds best to me. Then I could also pull it in if i2c needs
>> > it. Probably same situation for arm-soc...
>> >
>>
>> I initially wanted to merge small parts of it starting with v4.18, but
>> there were some voices against merging APIs without users. I'm not
>> sure how it should go in. There'll be a need for multiple immutable
>> branches most probably...
>
> Hi Bartosz
>
> What this series does is show all the different parts are now
> available, and can be reviewed as a whole. Once that review is
> completed, merging in parts then becomes possible.
>
> It looks like you could probably merge the nvmem, mtd and net parts
> independently via there maintainers for 4.20, since i don't think
> there are any dependencies. The arm-soc changes in 4.21, and the
> removal of the platform data in 4.22?
>
> Andrew
We need the first batch of SoC changes for the net part and then the
second batch depends on those net changes. Also: dragging the merge
for this over a year is a bit overkill.
Sekhar: I know you're usually provided with immutable branches from
framework maintainers for the SoC changes - is it ok for you to
provide the net maintainers with an immutable branch after applying
the first part of davinci board file changes?
Bart
^permalinkrawreply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread

*Re: [PATCH 00/28] at24: remove at24_platform_data
2018-08-08 16:52 ` Bartosz Golaszewski@ 2018-08-10 8:12 ` Sekhar Nori0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread
From: Sekhar Nori @ 2018-08-10 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski, Andrew Lunn
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski, Wolfram Sang, Jonathan Corbet, Kevin Hilman,
Russell King, Arnd Bergmann, Greg Kroah-Hartman, David Woodhouse,
Brian Norris, Boris Brezillon, Marek Vasut, Richard Weinberger,
Grygorii Strashko, David S . Miller, Srinivas Kandagatla, Naren,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Andrew Morton, Lukas Wunner,
Dan Carpenter, Florian Fainelli, Ivan Khoronzhuk,
Sven Van Asbroeck, Paolo Abeni, Alban Bedel, Rob Herring,
David Lechner, linux-doc, LKML, arm-soc, linux-i2c, linux-mtd,
Linux-OMAP, netdev
Hi Bart,
On Wednesday 08 August 2018 10:22 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2018-08-08 18:44 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>:
>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series[1] which partially
>>>>> removed the at24_platform_data structure. After further development and
>>>>> taking reviews into account, this series finally removes that struct
>>>>> completely but not without touching many different parts of the code
>>>>> base.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I took over maintainership of the at24 driver I've been working
>>>>> towards removing at24_platform_data in favor for device properties.
>>>>
>>>> Wooha, nice work. I can't really comment on it but wondered how you want
>>>> to upstream it (after reviews)? Pull request of an immutable branch for
>>>> nvmem-tree sounds best to me. Then I could also pull it in if i2c needs
>>>> it. Probably same situation for arm-soc...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I initially wanted to merge small parts of it starting with v4.18, but
>>> there were some voices against merging APIs without users. I'm not
>>> sure how it should go in. There'll be a need for multiple immutable
>>> branches most probably...
>>
>> Hi Bartosz
>>
>> What this series does is show all the different parts are now
>> available, and can be reviewed as a whole. Once that review is
>> completed, merging in parts then becomes possible.
>>
>> It looks like you could probably merge the nvmem, mtd and net parts
>> independently via there maintainers for 4.20, since i don't think
>> there are any dependencies. The arm-soc changes in 4.21, and the
>> removal of the platform data in 4.22?
>>
>> Andrew
>
> We need the first batch of SoC changes for the net part and then the
> second batch depends on those net changes. Also: dragging the merge
> for this over a year is a bit overkill.
>
> Sekhar: I know you're usually provided with immutable branches from
> framework maintainers for the SoC changes - is it ok for you to
> provide the net maintainers with an immutable branch after applying
> the first part of davinci board file changes?
Yeah, sure. I will be happy to do that to speed merging. Will take a
look at v2 you posted.
Thanks,
Sekhar
^permalinkrawreply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread